Thursday, December 31, 2015

Read this letter by Cece Doucette detailing how Ashland public schools is taking steps to reduce exposures in classrooms with mobile device best practices which as posted in every classroom.

"In the absence of a higher authority able to tell them what to do, our School Committee adopted the attached Best Practices for Mobile Devices to at least do what the manufacturers advised with creating distance, and turning devices and wi-fi off when not in use. Little did I know we were the first public school in the nation to take even this first step."

December 2015

Dear Montgomery County Leaders,

Please allow me to introduce myself, my name is Cece Doucette andI would like to share important information we are making available to our Ashland, Massachusetts community on the topic of wireless radiation relative to its impact on the health of humans. I hope you will investigate this issue and consider implementing similar outreach in Montgomery County so your citizens may begin to understand the potential health effects of this little-known, yet serious health matter.

How I Got Involved

A couple of years ago an electrical engineer friend mentioned something about wi-fi being potentially harmful, and I made a mental note of it and filed it away. Then a bit later I heard this again from another source. I had lead our local education foundation for eight years and personally ran campaigns to bring technology into our schools. Following that, I worked directly for our school district as our grant coordinator and helped our teachers secure many iPads, Chromebooks, smartboards, Apple TVs, etc. I felt morally obliged to look into this issue.

What I found was astounding. I am a technical writer by trade, so to help me keep track of the volume of information available on this topic, I created a simple repository to organize my findings. I welcome you to peruse Understanding EMFs.

A Difficult Conversation

I raised this issue with my school district, hoping somebody would say, “We’ve got it,” and I could be on my merry way. Unfortunately, this was news to everyone. I admit the conversation was difficult as nobody wanted to acknowledge that our beloved devices could be unsafe. Our School Committee did its due diligence though and spent hundreds of hours pouring through the research. One seasoned member looked at the top 20 lobbyists in D.C., and realized with so many of them from telecommunications and energy companies, there could be a great conflict of interest between profit models and public healthprotections. What really caused our School Committee to take action, however, is the manufacturers’ fine print which tells us to keep the devices a certain distance from our bodies, or else we will exceed the FCCs radiation limits. You can peruse the fine print from iPads, smart phones, etc. here:

Of course, none of these devices can be operated without touching them, so by simply using our devices with wi-fi onwe are exceeding the FCC guidelines. Those guidelines were put in place in 1996 and the only testing done was to see how much heat it would take from a single device to burn the skin of a six-foot, 220 pound military model. No testing was ever done on fetuses, children, the elderly or those with known health issues. No testing has ever been done on the ubiquitous way in which we now use technology: a multitude of devices sending and receiving signals at once; industrial strength routers at school and in public libraries; cell towers placed close to school children, the elderly, on hospitals; “smart” utility meters mounted on our homes; DECT cordless phones that serve as private cell towers in our homes; private routers that pulse radiation 24/7. The sum total never allows our bodies a chance to rest and cell regenerate properly and the fallout is beginning to show.My heart broke last week when the news report came out about a teen girl in England who committed suicide after becoming electrohypersensitive and not being given accommodations in school.

Our current guidelines address only the thermal, or heat effect. Science has long since identified there is great potential harm at the non-thermal, non-ionizing level well below what the FCC allows. Not only has the FCC failed to update their guidelines but the gentleman who now runs our FCC, Tom Wheeler, suppressed evidence of harm back in the 1990s when he was the chair of the Cellular Technology Industry Association (now called CTIA-The Wireless Association). Harvard University’s Center for Ethics published a paper on June 30th explaining how this came to be. Please see Captured Agency. Thus, wireless technology has been allowed to proliferate without ever having been properly safety tested and now it is everywhere.

First Public School to Address Wi-Fi Safety

Our school district was caught between a rock and a hard place. Technologists and engineers in our community knew only what the FCC espoused, saying wi-fi is fine, and were very vocal about not veering from our current wireless course. Yet, there were thousands of peer-reviewed non-industry funded scientific papers from experts all over the world stating otherwise and asking citizens and governments to take the precautionary approach by accessing technology via hard-wired Ethernet or fiber optic connections instead of wi-fi. Some countries havedone so, but not the U.S. In the absence of a higher authority able to tell them what to do, our School Committee adopted the attached Best Practices for Mobile Devices to at least do what the manufacturers advised with creating distance, and turning devices and wi-fi off when not in use. Little did I know we were the first public school in the nation to take even this first step.

Municipal Conversation and Legislation

When I spoke to our town administrators, potential harm from wi-fi radiation was news to everyone except our Town Manager. He had been a fighter pilot and our government still checks in with him to see if he’s suffered any radiation fallout. Our local health agent suspected our municipal hands were tied because the FCC ensured in the Telecommunications Act that folks cannot claim damages if someone’s health is compromised by cell tower exposure. He was gracious to reach out to our Massachusetts Department of Public Health, but they were not versed in this issue either. Fortunately, we have since learnedthe industry does not have a lock on wi-fi like they do with cellular licensing and municipalities can take independent action.

So, I met with my local State Senator and by that time had purchased a meter to measure the radiation output from our devices. I measured her cell phone and her district director’s laptop, and both measured off the charts. In January of this year, she introduced a brief piece of legislation to bring bright minds together to examine this issue, provide our citizens with the right to know about wi-fi radiation, and instruct on ways to use our devices more safely. Feel free to reference MA Senate Bill 1222.

World Experts Take Action

Since May of this year, more than 200 international scientists have made an Appeal to the United Nations, all its’ member States, and the World Health Organization. The signers of the Appeal, all of whom have produced peer-reviewed science on RF-radiation, state thatemission guidelines are not protective of human health, that we are on the verge of “an emerging public health crisis,” leading to premature death and damage to our DNA. They ask for several actions, including alerting the public, protecting children and others most vulnerable, creating white zones,and training physicians to treat those becoming electrohypersensitive.

As the proliferation of wireless radiation grows it becomes impossible to evade even in public spaces and, yet, most people are unaware of the radiation they are being exposed to. You might think of it like another air transmitted toxin, natural gas. Until the odor was added, one couldn’t detect it but it was there and very harmful. This is of great significance in regard to cellular and wi-fi radiation exposures on the health and well being of our community and ourselves because the harm is cumulative. We are now beginning to see legal action as evidenced here as people seek protections and public access to wi-fi free white zones. As with cigarette smoking and asbestos, it could take many years for this to be sorted out by our government and international agencies, but there is much we can do on an individual and community basis to lessen our exposure in the meantime. The first step is to get educated.

Community Conversations at the Library

I was pleasantly surprised when another member of our community studied this issue and established our Friends of the Library fall film and discussion series entitled ElectromagneticRadiation (EMR) and Health. Attached is the flyer containing detailed information, which could easily be mirrored or modified in Montgomery County. I hope you will agree the public library is an excellent place to provide educational information, employing good use of public facilities and encouraging community engagement.

I believe Montgomery County residents would be appreciative of your efforts to create a public forum for education and discussion of this important issue. While it is expected there will be differing perspectives on any new topic, all are in agreement that a right to know is important. As with cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, folks will do what they wish with the information, but at least they have a right to know about this toxin classified by the World Health Organization as a Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogen – right up there with lead, DDT, and chloroform. Our non-industry-funded scientists implore us to use hard-wired connections, I hope you will work toward this solution in your school district and public facilities to minimize further radiation exposure and create safe spaces for those already suffering.

Our talks have been lively here in Ashland, but respectful, and our community is richer and safer for it. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, please don’t hesitate to reach out if I can offer additional insights.

Respectfully,

Cece Doucette

Ashland, MA

------------------------------------------------

Ashland School District "Best Practices" to turn the WiFi off when not in use Download Slides

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Update: A NEW amended complaint has been filed in the case of the boy who developed a debilitating sensitivity to the Wi-Fi networks in a private Massachusetts school.

After a scheduling conference was held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Worcester, the case is set to go to trial on Aug. 8 before District Judge Timothy S. Hillman, according to court records. Read more on the court date here.

"Instead of working with the parents in a constructive way to solve the problem caused by its Wi-Fi emissions and the resulting symptoms suffered by G at Fay, Fay has engaged is a series of hostile actions toward G and his parents. Fay has refused to make any meaningful accommodations for or provide any meaningful assistance to G."

BackgroundAfter more robust School Wi-Fi was installed in Spring 2013, a 12 year old boy started to experience troubling symptoms, which he reported to his parents when he came home from school. These included severe headaches, itchy skin, and rashes. The school nurse indicated that various children in the same classes were reporting increased headaches, dizziness, nausea and chest pressure. The symptoms were present whenever he was at school. In August 2015 the parents filed a federal complaint stating that the school has failed to provide reasonable accommodations for the child as required by the ADA. Read more about the initial complaint here.

What does the Amended Complaint State?

The complaint details that the Fay School has engaged in a series of hostile actions toward the boy and his parents. It states the Fay School:

Refused to make any meaningful accommodations.

Refused to allow him to be on the Fay campus for any reason, including athletics.

Refused to consider the medical evidence submitted by the parents .

Ignored the evidence that G’s symptoms occur only at Fay.

Refused to meet with the parents and their computer experts over the summer of 2015.

Banned G’s parents from speaking with the teachers and staff at Fay.

Threatened G’s Mother that, if she used the Fay email system to discuss this.

Threatening to dismiss him from school if they speak to his teachers about this.

Repeatedly demanded that G take drugs to mask but not cure his symptoms despite the serious side effects of those drugs.

Demanded that G and his parents submit to examinations by doctors of Fay’s choosing even though those doctors stated openly at the outset that they do not believe that Wi-Fi can cause the symptoms G has suffered.

Forced the boy to submit to a humiliating psychological examination even though he has never manifested any symptoms of any psychological problem.

In short.

The Complaint states that Fay School is not taking action to accommodate the boy despite the parents offering to pay for such accommodations. The boy was so sick that he could not continue at school and now has a home tutor. However, the Complaint states that Fay has also refused to allow the student to come onto the campus for any reason at all, even if it would involve activities that did not expose him to Wi-Fi. The situation for the boy is made more difficult by schools refusal to fully coordinate with the tutor and homeschooling studies.

Were measurements done at the school?

The student went to his classes over several days carrying a dosimeter device in one of his pockets. This allowed measurement of the WiFi emissions making contact with his body since the dosimeter was next to his body, in a pocket.The Dosimeter records the Wi-Fi exposure on an on-going basis throughout the day so that, at the end of any day, its measurements can be reviewed to determine what the rate and intensity of the Wi-Fi emissions. The readings revealed that at certain times of the school day, the Wi-Fi emission readings were very low and at other times of the day they were very high

What did Fay School do after learning of the measurements?

According to the complaint, they forbade the student from bringing the dosimeter to school ever again, threatening to dismiss him from school if he did so.

Where is the boy being educated?"Because Fay has not made any meaningful adjustments to its Wi-Fi system or even cooperated in determining how to do so, G’s symptoms while at Fay have worsened to the point that frequently he can no longer sit in the classrooms and must instead engage in home study of the Fay curriculum."

The boy’s symptoms have worsened to the point where he could not stay in classrooms but had to stay at home with a tutor as of December 1, 2015. The Complaint states that the school did not make this easy. It also states the Fay School has refused to allow the student to listen in to the classes nor do the teachers communicate with the tutor about the daily lesson plans.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

"Waiting for the government to update their decades old regulations will be too late for the children currently being exposed to RF radiation in your district's classrooms. Wi-Fi networks in schools and cell towers on your school grounds could significantly increase the cancer risk in your community."

Dear
Montgomery County Public Schools,

I
am a physician epidemiologist specializing in cancer
etiology, prevention and screening, currently
Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public
Health, University of Toronto. In the past I served as Assistant
Executive Director (Epidemiology) of the National Cancer Institute of Canada;
Director, Epidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Toronto, and
Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of
Toronto. I have conducted research on
ionizing radiation and electromagnetic fields and cancer. I have served on many
expert committees assessing the carcinogenicity of various exposures, including
working groups of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC).

I am writing to ensure you
have accurate information about the research on radiofrequency radiation and
health as I understand that
Montgomery County Public School District is addressing the health risks of
radiofrequency radiation and posting information to parents and staff.

In
2011 a working group of IARC classified Radiofrequency radiation as a Class 2B
Carcinogen, a possible human carcinogen (May 31, 2011 Press Release by the
International Agency for Cancer, Lyon, France). The
IARC 2013 Monograph vol. 102 details the evidence that provided
the scientific basis for the classification:

●Epidemiological
studies that looked at long term cell phone exposures found an increased risk
of brain cancer after heavy cell phone exposures equivalent to about 30 minutes
a day for over ten years.

The
IARC classification is intended to apply to
all radiofrequencies from 0KHz to 300GHz clearly including the 2.45
GHz commonly used for
wireless networks in schools; specifically wireless laptops, wireless tablets
and Wi-Fi access points.

●Current
US exposure guidelines for radiofrequency energy radiation levels were
developed three decades ago to avoid heat and they did not consider the unique
vulnerability of children to this type of radiation. FCC compliance is
therefore not proof of safety.

●Many
studies have shown that RF radiation exposures at levels that do not induce heat can damage the nervous system,
impair sleep, hearing and reproductive health, and increase the risk of cancer.

●Children
absorb RF radiation deeper into their bodies and brain than adults and they are
far more vulnerable than adults to adverse effects of RF radiation now and in
the future.

I
recently co-authored a review paper in the International
Journal of Oncology, which looked at research published after the 2011 IARC 2B
classification.We concluded that
radiofrequency fields should be re-classified as a Group 2A probable human
carcinogen under the criteria used by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer.

It often takes many years
between the use of a new cancer-causing agent — such as tobacco — and the
observation of an increase in cancer rates. Initially, we thought lung cancer
was the only effect of smoking but now we understand a myriad of cancers plus
heart disease, stroke, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, cataracts,
inflammation, impaired immune function and more are caused by cigarette smoke. Similarly,
research indicates a far too long list of possible biological effects from
radiofrequency exposures in addition to
brain cancer. Accumulated research
indicates oxidative stress, neurological, immune and reproductive damage occurs
after exposure to RF radiation.It will be some years before we see the
full effects from this exposure in the population and understand the full extent
of its harmful effects.

We advise
that the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle be adopted for all
uses of wireless technology. The federal government should adopt the precautionary principle and put
stronger warnings on cell phones and wireless devices. Likewise, school districts should also adopt the
precautionary principle and use safe hardwired technology for Internet
connections in the classroom. The ALARA principle provides an excellent
framework for moving forward.

Waiting for the government to update
their decades old regulations will be too late for the children currently being
exposed to RF radiation in your district's classrooms. Wi-Fi networks in
schools and cell towers on your school grounds could significantly increase the
cancer risk in your community. I urge you to educate your school community
about the health risks from cell phones and wireless devices so they can take
simple precautions to protect their health.
I urge you to act thoughtfully now
to reduce wireless exposures in classroom and choose safer corded non-wireless technology for Internet
connections to ensure a safe school environment for children, teachers and
staff.

Monday, December 14, 2015

"I urge you to opt for wired technologies in Montgomery County classrooms, particularly for those subpopulations that are most sensitive. It will be easier for you to make a healthier decision now than to undo misguided decisions later."

Dear Montgomery County School District,

I am a pediatric neurologist and neuroscientist on the faculty of Harvard Medical School and on
staff at the Massachusetts General Hospital. I am Board Certified in Neurology with Special
Competency in Child Neurology, and Subspecialty Certification in Neurodevelopmental Disorders.
I have an extensive history of research and clinical practice in neurodevelopmental disorders,
particularly autism spectrum disorders. I have published papers in brain imaging research, in
physiological abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders, and in environmental influences on
neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and on brain development and function.

A few years ago I accepted an invitation to review literature pertinent to a potential link between
Autism Spectrum Disorders and Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMF) and Radiofrequency
Radiation(RFR). I set out to write a paper of modest length, but found much more literature than I
had anticipated to review. I ended up producing a 60 page single spaced paper with over 550
citations. It is available at http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wpcontent/uploads/pdfs/sec20_2012_Findings_in_Autism.pdf
and it was published in a revised and
somewhat shortened form in two parts in the peer reviewed indexed journal Pathophysiology
(2013)with the title: Áutism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link.” Please also see the
appendix to this letter which contains a summary of this material and includes substantial scientific
citations.

More recently I published an article entitled “Connections in Our Environment: Sizing upElectromagnetic Fields,” in Autism Notebook Spring 2015 edition in which I summarized and
personalized the information in the . In this article I describe how here is a whole series of
problems at the cellular, sub-cellular and metabolic levels and immune levels that have been
identified in autism. And interestingly, for every single one of those problems, there’s literature
about how EMFs can create those kinds of problems.

The argument I made in these articles is not that EMF is proven to cause autism, but rather, that
EMF can certainly contribute to degrading the physiological integrity of the system at the cellular
and molecular level” – and this in turn appears to contribute to the pathogenesis/causation not only
of autism but of many highly common chronic illnesses, including cancer, obesity, diabetes and
heart disease.. Please see this article on page 24-25 at the link
http://virtualpublications.soloprinting.com/publication/?i=252361

In fact, there are thousands of papers that have accumulated over decades –and are now
accumulating at an accelerating pace, as our ability to measure impacts become more sensitive –
that document adverse health and neurological impacts of EMF/RFR. Children are more vulnerable
than adults, and children with chronic illnesses and/or neurodevelopmental disabilities are even
more vulnerable. Elderly or chronically ill adults are more vulnerable than healthy adults.

Current technologies were designed and promulgated without taking account of biological impacts
other than thermal impacts. We now know that there are a large array of impacts that have nothing
to do with the heating of tissue. The claim from wifi proponents that the only concern is thermal
impacts is now definitively outdated scientifically.

Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect
on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic
function. This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already
having learning or medical problems in the first place. And since half of the children in this country
have some kind of chronic illness, this means that a lot of people are more vulnerable than you
might expect to these issues.

Powerful industrial entities have a vested interest in leading the public to believe that EMF/RFR,
which we cannot see, taste or touch, is harmless, but this is not true. Please do the right and
precautionary thing for our children.

I urge you to opt for wired technologies in Montgomery County classrooms, particularly for those
subpopulations that are most sensitive. It will be easier for you to make a healthier decision now
than to undo misguided decisions later.

Thank you.

Martha Herbert, PhD, MD

APPENDIX: MORE DETAILED SUMMARY OF THE PATHOPHYSIOLOGY

I became interested in the health and brain effects of electromagnetic frequency (EMF) and
radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures in relation to my brain research because I was
interested in how such exposures might alter brain function. In order to familiarize myself in
more detail existing literature on the pathophysiological impacts of EMF/RFR, I coauthored a
40,000 word chapter in the 2012 update of the Bioinitiative, 1 and published an updated
30,000 word version of that paper (“Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a Pathophysiological
Link”) in 2013 in two parts in the peer reviewed journal Pathophysiology.
2, 3
My intention
was to assess the plausibility of an association between increasing incidence of autism
spectrum disorder and increasing EMF/RFR exposures.

Rather than directly address the
epidemiological issues, I looked at the parallels between the pathophysiological features
documented in autism and the pathophysiological impacts of EMF/RFR documented in the
peer-reviewed published scientific literature.
I will include here a brief summary of the paper (prepared for a lay audience) of the features
of EMF/RFR that I reviewed (with citations at the end of this letter):

EMF/RFR stresses cells. It lead to cellular stress, such as production of heat shock
proteins, even when The EMF/RFR isn’t intense enough to cause measurable heat
increase. 4-6

EMF/RFR damages cell membranes, and make them leaky, which makes it hard for
them to maintain important chemical and electrical differences between what is
inside and outside the membrane. This degrades metabolism in many ways – makes
it inefficient. 7-15

EMF/RFR damages mitochondria. Mitochondria are the energy factories of our cells.
Mitochondria conduct their chemical reactions on their membranes. When those
membranes get damaged, the mitochondria struggle to do their work and don’t do it
so well. Mitochondria can also be damaged through direct hits to steps in their
chemical assembly line. When mitochondria get inefficient, so do we. This can hit our
brains especially hard, since electrical communication and synapses in the brain
demands huge amounts of energy.

EMF/RFR creates “oxidative stress.” Oxidative stress is something that occurs when
the system can’t keep up with the stress caused by utilizing oxygen, because the
price we pay for using oxygen is that it generates free radicals. These are generated
in the normal course of events, and they are “quenched” by antioxidants like we get
Treatment Research And NeuroSCience Evaluation of NeuroDevelopmental Disorders
in fresh fruits and vegetables; but when the antioxidants can’t keep up or the
damage is too great, the free radicals start damaging things.

EMF/RFR is genotoxic and damages proteins, with a major mechanism being
EMF/RFR-created free radicals which damage cell membranes, DNA, proteins,
anything they touch. When free radicals damage DNA they can cause mutations.
This is one of the main ways that EMF/RFR is genotoxic – toxic to the genes. When
they damage proteins they can cause them to fold up in peculiar ways. We are
learning that diseases like Alzheimer’s are related to the accumulation of mis-folded
proteins, and the failure of the brain to clear out this biological trash from its tissues
and fluids.

EMF/RFR depletes glutathione, which is the body’s premier antioxidant and
detoxification substance. So on the one hand EMF/RFR creates damage that
increases the need for antioxidants, and on the other hand they deplete those very
antioxidants.1, 16

EMF/RFR damages vital barriers in the body, particularly the blood-brain barrier,
which protects the brain from things in the blood that might hurt the brain. When
the blood-brain barrier gets leaky, cells inside the brain suffer, be damaged, and get
killed. 1, 16, 17

EMF/RFR can alter the function of calcium channels, which are openings in the cell
membranes that play a huge number of vital roles in brain and body. 18-27

EMF/RFR degrades the rich, complex integration of brainwaves, and increase the
“entropy” or disorganization of signals in the brain – this means that they can
become less synchronized or coordinated; such reduced brain coordination has been
measured in autism. 28-40

EMF/RFR can interfere with sleep and the brain’s production of melatonin. 41-43

EMF/RFR can contribute to immune problems. 44-50

EMF/RFR contribute to increasing stress at the chemical, immune and electrical
levels, which we experience psychologically. 51-57 17, 58-62 63-68

Please note that:

There are a lot of other things that can create similar damaging effects, such as
thousands of “xenobiotic” substances that we call toxicants. Significantly, toxic
chemicals (including those that contain naturally occurring toxic elements such as
lead and mercury) cause damage through many of the same mechanisms outlined
above.

In many of the experimental studies with EMF/RFR, damage could be diminished by
improving nutrient status, particularly by adding antioxidants and melatonin. 69-72

I understand that the concept of electromagnetic hypersensitivity is not always well
understood in the medical and scientific communities. Indeed, the inter-individual variability
is perplexing to those who would expect a more consistent set of features.

But given the range of challenges I have listed that EMF/RFR poses to core processes in
biological systems, and given the inter-individually variable vulnerability across these
symptoms, it is really not surprising that there would be subgroups with different
combinations of symptom clusters.

It also appears to be the case that the onset and duration of symptoms or even brain
response to EMR/RFR can be variable. This again is to be expected given the mediation of
these symptoms through a variety of the above-listed pathophysiological processes, many
of which differ in scale (ranging from molecular to cellular to tissue and organ) and time
course of impact. The different parts of the body also absorb this energy differently, both
Treatment Research And NeuroSCience Evaluation of NeuroDevelopmental Disorders
because of their biophysical properties and as a function of their state of health or
compromise thereof.

Here is a list of subgroups of symptom clusters identified by a group of German physicians, t
exemplifies these variability issues: